On Wed, 28.01.15 16:48, Andrei Borzenkov (arvidj...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Lennart Poettering > <lenn...@poettering.net> wrote: > > On Wed, 28.01.15 10:13, Rauta, Alin (alin.ra...@intel.com) wrote: > > > >> Lennart, on a switch I should be able to configure more than one UFD > >> group. > > > > What precisely does this mean? WOuld those groups be orthogonal? > > > > No. You have two different VLANs; uplink group 1 connects to to VLAN1, > uplink group 2 connects to VLAN2. They are not orthogonal in any way > and exist at the same time. If group 1 goes down, it does not affect > group 2 in any way.
Hmm, if they don't affect each other, then they *are* orthogonal. Now I am really confused... > > > I really would like to avoid introdcuing the "tags" concept for > > now. Would a solution where you give the uplinks appropriate names > > (like "uplink0", "uplinkXYZ", "uplink_waldo" and so on) suffice, when > > you can then refer to them in a .network file you apply to the > > downlinks as "BindCarrier=uplink*"? > > > > BindCarrier= would take a list of interface names, possibly with > > globs. If you want to up and down a link "foo" if at least one of the > > links "bar", "quux", "piep", "miau1", "miau2" are up, you could write > > this as "BindCarrier=bar quux piep miau*". > > > > What would introducing the "tag" concept give you beyond this very > > simple schreme described above? > > > > Lennart > > > > -- > > Lennart Poettering, Red Hat > > _______________________________________________ > > systemd-devel mailing list > > systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel